Re: [linux-audio-user] Copyrights on samples

On Monday 13 Oct 2003 8:54 pm, iriXx wrote: I'm sure it isn't quite that simple either. I suspect it's one of those murky things that has never properly been tested either way. The whole purpose of these instruments is to be performed, recorded, and otherwise redistributed. That's what they sell them for. Imagine you put out a minimal electro track recorded with a Roland instrument (as many have done) and described it on the back as a recording of a Roland instrument. Could they sue you for that? Would you need to acknowledge their copyright in the samples even as you retained copyright in the song? What exactly is the difference between that and a sample CD? Is it "fair use" to use a certain selection of the available range of notes, but wholesale piracy to duplicate the entire pitch range? Is it just about intention? People here have referred to licensing provisions, but I'm not at all convinced that embedded software distributed as an integral part of a device that is undoubtedly _sold_ to you (not licensed) could ever be legally said to be licensed rather than sold, and I'm certainly not sure that any such license could be said to cover the results of running the software (that is, the sounds). How far would such a company get in suing you for putting out a soundfont recorded from one of their _acoustic_ grand pianos? What about a violin maker? (OK, that'd doubtless be an awful soundfont, but you get the idea.) Again, what is the difference? The synth has software in it, sure, but you're not copying the software. Ethically, I happen to think that duplicating a Roland in free software is a pretty dubious activity. Legally, I reckon Roland could probably bring enough vague threats to get your ISP to pull the site you distributed it from, but I'm not at all persuaded they'd win a case in court, even in the US. Not that I know anything worth knowing about this, of course: I'm just enjoying theorising about it. Chris